Cost effective technologies and renewable substrates for biosurfactants’ production

Diverse types of microbial surface-active amphiphilic molecules are produced by a range of microbial communities. The extraordinary properties of biosurfactant / bioemulsifier (BS/BE) as surface active products allows them to have key roles in various field of applications such as bioremediation, biodegradation, enhanced oil recovery, pharmaceutics, food processing among many others. This leads to a vast number of potential applications of these BS/BE in different industrial sectors. Despite the huge number of reports and patents describing BS and BE applications and advantages, commercialization of these compounds remain difficult, costly and to a large extent irregular. This is mainly due to the usage of chemically synthesized media for growing producing microorganism and in turn the production of preferred quality products. It is important to note that although a number of developments have taken place in the field of biosurfactant industries, large scale production remains economically challenging for many types of these products. This is mainly due to the huge monetary difference between the investment and achievable productivity from the commercial point of view. This review discusses low cost, renewable raw substrates and fermentation technology in BS/BE production processes and their role in reducing the production cost

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet - a population-based study

Background Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. Methods We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. Findings Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. Interpretation Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. Funding The European Commission (Chafea)

Long-term survival for lymphoid neoplasms and national health expenditure (EUROCARE-6): a retrospective, population-based study

Background: Management of lymphoid malignancies requires substantial health system resources. Total national health expenditure might influence population-based lymphoid malignancy survival. We studied the long-term survival of patients with 12 lymphoid malignancy types and examined whether different levels of national health expenditure might explain differences in lymphoid malignancy prognosis between European countries and regions. Methods: For this observational, retrospective, population-based study, we analysed the EUROCARE-6 dataset of patients aged 15 or older diagnosed between 2001 and 2013 with one of 12 lymphoid malignancies defined according to International Classification of Disease for Oncology (third edition) and WHO classification, and followed up to 2014 (Jan 1, 2001-Dec 31, 2014). Countries were classified according to their mean total national health expenditure quartile in 2001-13. For each lymphoid malignancy, 5-year and 10-year age-standardised relative survival (ASRS) was calculated using the period approach. Generalised linear models indicated the effects of age at diagnosis, gender, and total national health expenditure on the relative excess risk of death (RER). Findings: 82 cancer registries (61 regional and 21 national) from 27 European countries provided data eligible for 10-year survival estimates comprising 890 730 lymphoid malignancy cases diagnosed in 2001-13. Median follow-up time was 13 years (IQR 13-14). Of the 12 lymphoid malignancies, the 10-year ASRS in Europe was highest for hairy cell leukaemia (82·6% [95% CI 78·9-86·5) and Hodgkin lymphoma (79·3% [78·6-79·9]) and lowest for plasma cell neoplasms (29·5% [28·9-30·0]). RER increased with age at diagnosis, particularly from 55-64 years to 75 years or older, for all lymphoid malignancies. Women had higher ASRS than men for all lymphoid malignancies, except for precursor B, T, or natural killer cell, or not-otherwise specified lymphoblastic lymphoma or leukaemia. 10-year ASRS for each lymphoid malignancy was higher (and the RER lower) in countries in the highest national health expenditure quartile than in countries in the lowest quartile, with a decreasing pattern through quartiles for many lymphoid malignancies. 10-year ASRS for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the most representative class for lymphoid malignancies based on the number of incident cases, was 59·3% (95% CI 58·7-60·0) in the first quartile, 57·6% (55·2-58·7) in the second quartile, 55·4% (54·3-56·5) in the third quartile, and 44·7% (43·6-45·8) in the fourth quartile; with reference to the European mean, the RER was 0·80 (95% CI 0·79-0·82) in the first, 0·91 (0·90-0·93) in the second, 0·94 (0·92-0·96) in the third, and 1·45 (1·42-1·48) in the fourth quartiles. Interpretation: Total national health expenditure is associated with geographical inequalities in lymphoid malignancy prognosis. Policy decisions on allocating economic resources and implementing evidence-based models of care are needed to reduce these differences. Funding: Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Estonian Research Council

Long-term survival and cure fraction estimates for childhood cancer in Europe (EUROCARE-6): results from a population-based study

Background: The EUROCARE-5 study revealed disparities in childhood cancer survival among European countries, giving rise to important initiatives across Europe to reduce the gap. Extending its representativeness through increased coverage of eastern European countries, the EUROCARE-6 study aimed to update survival progress across countries and years of diagnosis and provide new analytical perspectives on estimates of long-term survival and the cured fraction of patients with childhood cancer. Methods: In this population-based study, we analysed 135 847 children (aged 0–14 years) diagnosed during 2000–13 and followed up to the end of 2014, recruited from 80 population-based cancer registries in 31 European countries. We calculated age-adjusted 5-year survival differences by country and over time using period analysis, for all cancers combined and for major cancer types. We applied a variant of standard mixture cure models for survival data to estimate the cure fraction of patients by childhood cancer and to estimate projected 15-year survival. Findings: 5-year survival for all childhood cancer combined in Europe in 2010–14 was 81% (95% CI 81–82), showing an increase of three percentage points compared with 2004–06. Significant progress over time was observed for almost all cancers. Survival remained stable for osteosarcomas, Ewing sarcoma, Burkitt lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and rhabdomyoscarcomas. For all cancers combined, inequalities still persisted among European countries (with age-adjusted 5-year survival ranging from 71% [95% CI 60–79] to 87% [77–93]). The 15-year survival projection for all patients with childhood cancer diagnosed in 2010–13 was 78%. We estimated the yearly long-term mortality rate due to causes other than the diagnosed cancer to be around 2 per 1000 patients for all childhood cancer combined, but to approach zero for retinoblastoma. The cure fraction for patients with childhood cancer increased over time from 74% (95% CI 73–75) in 1998–2001 to 80% (79–81) in 2010–13. In the latter cohort, the cure fraction rate ranged from 99% (95% CI 74–100) for retinoblastoma to 60% (58–63) for CNS tumours and reached 90% (95% CI 87–93) for lymphoid leukaemia and 70% (67–73) for acute myeloid leukaemia. Interpretation: Childhood cancer survival is increasing over time in Europe but there are still some differences among countries. Regular monitoring of childhood cancer survival and estimation of the cure fraction through population-based registry data are crucial for evaluating advances in paediatric cancer care. Funding: European Commission

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet—a population-based study

Background Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. Methods We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. Findings Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. Interpretation Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. Funding The European Commission (Chafea)

Epidemiology of rare cancers and inequalities in oncologic outcomes

Rare cancers epidemiology is better known compared to the other rare diseases. Thanks to the long history of the European population-based cancer registries and to the EUROCARE huge database, the burden of rare cancers has been estimated the European (EU28) population. A considerable fraction of all cancers is represented by rare cancers (24%). They are a heterogeneous group of diseases, but they share similar problems: uncertainty of diagnosis, lack of therapies, poor research opportunities, difficulties in clinical trials, lack of expertise and of centres of reference. This paper analyses the major epidemiological indicators of frequency (incidence and prevalence) and outcome (5-year survival) of all rare cancers combined and of selected rare cancers that will be in depth treated in this monographic issue. Source of the results is the RARECAREnet search tool, a database publicly available. Disparities both in incidence and survival, and consequently in prevalence of rare cancers were reported across European countries. Major differences were shown in outcome: 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers together, adjusted by age and case-mix, varied from 55% or more (Italy, Germany, Belgium and Iceland) and less than 40% (Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia). Similarly, for all the analyzed rare cancers, a large survival gap was observed between the Eastern and the Nordic and Central European regions. Dramatic geographical variations were assessed for curable cancers like testicular and non epithelial ovarian cancers. Geographical difference in the annual age-adjusted incidence rates for all rare cancers together varied between >140 per 100,000 (Italy, Scotland, France, Germany, and Switzerland) and <100 (Finland, Portugal, Malta, and Poland). Prevalence, the major indicator of public health resources needs, was about 7–8 times larger than incidence. Most of rare cancers require complex surgical treatment, thus a multidisciplinary approach is essential and treatment should be provided in centres of expertise and/or in networks including expert centres. Networking is the most appropriate answer to the issues pertaining to rare cancers. Actually, in Europe, an opportunity to improve outcome and reduce disparities is provided by the creation of the European Reference Networks for rare diseases (ERNs). The Joint Action of rare cancers (JARC) is a major European initiative aimed to support the mission of the ERNs. The role of population based cancer registries still remains crucial to describe rare cancers management and outcome in the real word and to evaluate progresses made at the country and at the European level